@@arthurcoward6979 In essence too much complaint. Beyond pessimistic. A lack of intellectual imagination. A walking paradox seeming to project his own condition in the socio-economic environment of late 20th century early 21st century American Art, and/or the conditions that produced his career as an excitable but trivial critic. He says some pretty terrible things in this lecture if one listens closely - start with, say, what Mr. Hickey says at around 17:50...but he inconsiderately chatters about throughout the lecture...I could say more in a different format...but this man was ultimately silly as an art critic, and perhaps that's why he was so well loved by anti-intellectuals...or at least appreciated for his naked faux-populism...
@@arthurcoward6979 The Rice University lecture offered a clearer sense of his humor, which upon closer looks is mildly provocative. And, yes, admittedly I took his schtick too seriously, though beneath the humor there is some authentic belief there. He seems disinclined to lie to himself about who he is and what he is a product of, which I appreciate. This lecture at University of Memphis inspired some empathy for him. czcams.com/video/pa4SJ7GvDk8/video.html We all have our flaws and limits. But I expect a great mind to stretch at least a bit more.
To the other three that have commented here: who instead, would you recommend listening to today?
I love D.H.'s writing but he's a bit lugubrious and Dixieland-story-hour circuitous in talk form. I'd recommend either Peter Schjeldahl or Ben Davis.
18:48 - Arthur Danto (the most art-ignorant art critic who ever lived)
An american original
some of that really did not age well... lol
Agreed. In fact most of it has not aged well.
@@arthurcoward6979 In essence too much complaint. Beyond pessimistic. A lack of intellectual imagination. A walking paradox seeming to project his own condition in the socio-economic environment of late 20th century early 21st century American Art, and/or the conditions that produced his career as an excitable but trivial critic. He says some pretty terrible things in this lecture if one listens closely - start with, say, what Mr. Hickey says at around 17:50...but he inconsiderately chatters about throughout the lecture...I could say more in a different format...but this man was ultimately silly as an art critic, and perhaps that's why he was so well loved by anti-intellectuals...or at least appreciated for his naked faux-populism...
@@arthurcoward6979 The Rice University lecture offered a clearer sense of his humor, which upon closer looks is mildly provocative. And, yes, admittedly I took his schtick too seriously, though beneath the humor there is some authentic belief there. He seems disinclined to lie to himself about who he is and what he is a product of, which I appreciate. This lecture at University of Memphis inspired some empathy for him. czcams.com/video/pa4SJ7GvDk8/video.html We all have our flaws and limits. But I expect a great mind to stretch at least a bit more.
all of it aged incredibly well
unbridled cynicism 🤢
i suppose the medicis didn't know anything about art either